[rtcweb] (resend) RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00.txt
Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> Sat, 20 October 2012 17:24 UTC
Return-Path: <matthew@matthew.at>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6B921F8858 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.057
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xo0Ft13A3EPm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from where.matthew.at (where.matthew.at [198.202.199.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B7621F8840 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.10.155.229] (unknown [10.10.155.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by where.matthew.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDBD148096 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5082DE61.8020706@matthew.at>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:24:49 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070401010400090304000505"
Subject: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00.txt
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:24:50 -0000
[Note: Harald's reply to this message which quoted part of it did make it to the list, but my original did not] I see nothing in this draft which has changed the landscape as it existed when these blog postings were made: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/03/follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx I think that we should only seriously consider MTI codecs which have been developed and improved within the context of an existing standards body, for the multitude of technical and non-technical benefits that process provides for those who ship the codecs in their products. I will note, for instance, that the Opus audio codec is a substantially better general-purpose Internet codec than SILK as a result of following this process. Matthew Kaufman
- [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Fwd: New Version Notificati… Matthew Kaufman
- [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Fwd: New Version Notificati… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] (resend) RE: Fwd: New Version Notifi… Ron